Note: Catholics use doctrines, not arguments, as mantras.

I'd say Buddhism is batch of practices where even language is considered a practice that leads to certain effects and states (processes). Language as pointing. What leads to a goal.

Is Buddhism a philosophy or a religion? Yes.

But for purposes of this forum, considering it a philosophy might be useful. To break it down instead of swallowing it whole. One can get to know it as a philosophy, fall in love with it as a practice, and marry it as a religion... if one were so inclined, lol.

How do we define philosophy and religion?

The heart of philosophy is critical thinking and Buddhism meets that condition in being both based on facts (4 noble truths) and arguing for a worldview from them.

While religion may not be all blind faith, argumentation is frowned upon for the reason that god is perfect - among other things, is infallible and all good - and so to argue against good becomes, in the eyes of the faithful, both foolish and evil, with greater emphasis on the latter.

I assume that you can easily show how the Four Noble Truths are factual.

To my mind, Buddhism (theravada? mahāyāna? vajrayāna?) is more religious than philosophical, that is, its doctrines are more dogmatic than aporetic in practice. — 180 Proof

I assume that you can easily show how the Four Noble Truths are factual. — praxis

The 4 noble truths:
1. Life is suffering
2. Craving is the cause of suffering
Ergo,
3. To end suffering, one must end craving
4. The 8-fold path is a means to end craving

That life is suffering is plain to see. That craving is, if not the primary cause, at least a major contributor to suffering. That to end suffering, craving has to be ended follows from these premises. Whether the 8-fold path is the correct method to end craving is, unfortunately, debatable.

How so? I did mention some elements of Buddhism like the existence of a pantheon of deities could be grounds to infer it to be a religion but these are, to my reckoning, later additions as Buddhism came under the influence of Hinduism.

The quote is from an old post (linked) that further elaborates. That thread was more or less the same topic as this one.

The quote is from an old post (linked) that further elaborates. That thread was more or less the same topic as this one. — 180 Proof

If you'll allow me to reframe the question: Which of the existing religions is closest to the spirit of philosophy? Perhaps the star of Buddhism's philosophical nature gets obscured in the bright sunlight of philosophy proper but if I were to compare them to the more or less equally bright stars of other religions, you might be able to discern something.

The religion of science?

The religion of science? — Roy Davies

The essence of Buddhism is rational analysis and in that it resembles science.

I've often wondered about the pessimistic view of the 4 noble truths.
What is the optimistic version?
1. Life is joy
2. Experience brings joy
ergo
3. To continue joy, one must continue experiencing and questioning
4. (I don't have a path for this)

Very likely. I am curious about the different ways that ideas are valued across different cultures (and hence religions). And thus what we might learn by cross-pollinating between different 'systems'. Is there a superset of techniques that will result in the ultimate way to best evaluate ideas for 'goodness'? (yes, I am aware of the highly subjective nature of that comment).

That life is suffering is plain to see. — TheMadFool

No, there’s pleasure or satisfaction also, truth be told.

That craving is, if not the primary cause, at least a major contributor to suffering. That to end suffering, craving has to be ended follows from these premises. — TheMadFool

If craving is only a partial cause then ending it may not do the trick.

Whether the 8-fold path is the correct method to end craving is, unfortunately, debatable. — TheMadFool

So debatable rather than factual.

If you define religion as consisting in worship of a deity, then Buddhism both does and does not (and neither does nor does not :wink:) qualify as a religion, and this depends on its adherents/ practitioners. There are both superstitious and secular Buddhisms and Buddhists.

It could be thought to qualify to an equal degree as a philosophy as Schopenhauer's World as Will and Representation does, except for the twin irrational beliefs in Karma and Rebirth (Schopenhauer's philosophy arguably entertained only one irrational belief, namely the belief in Will).

I've often wondered about the pessimistic view of the 4 noble truths.
What is the optimistic version?
1. Life is joy
2. Experience brings joy
ergo
3. To continue joy, one must continue experiencing and questioning
4. (I don't have a path for this) — Roy Davies

ask @180 Proof about how pessimism is the only realistic attitude to adopt. Hint: entropy. Always indebted to you 180 Proof.

If you define religion as consisting in worship of a deity, then Buddhism both does and does not (and neither does nor does not :wink:) qualify as a religion, and this depends on its adherents/ practitioners. There are both superstitious and secular Buddhisms and Buddhists.

It could be thought to qualify to an equal degree as a philosophy as Schopenhauer's World as Will and Representation does, except for the twin irrational beliefs in Karma and Rebirth (Schopenhauer's philosophy arguably entertained only one irrational belief, namely the belief in Will). — Janus

As I mentioned in a preceding post, Hinduism had a major influence on Buddhism in its history. The core principles of Buddhism remain atheistic in the sense it doesn't subscribe to an all-powerful, all-good, all-knowing being.

ask 180 Proof about how pessimism is the only realistic attitude to adopt. Hint: entropy. — TheMadFool

Why should the fact of entropy lead us to pessimism?

As I mentioned in a preceding post, Hinduism had a major influence on Buddhism in its history. The core principles of Buddhism remain atheistic in the sense it doesn't subscribe to an all-powerful, all-good, all-knowing being. — TheMadFool

The Buddha is considered to be all-good and all-knowing if not all-powerful. There are many deities in Tibetan Buddhism (not to mention quite a few other schools). Buddhism may not be a "true" religion (in the sense that there are no "True Scotsmen") but it undoubtedly contains religious elements that most philosophy does not. Any philosophy that does contain religious elements would probably be better characterized as theology.

Why should the fact of entropy lead us to pessimism? — Janus

There are more ways to suffer than there are ways to be happy. All things being equal, you're likely to experience more suffering than happiness.

The Buddha is considered to be all-good and all-knowing if not all-powerful. There are many deities in Tibetan Buddhism (not to mention quite a few other schools). Buddhism may not be a "true" religion (in the sense that there are no "True Scotsmen") but it undoubtedly contains religious elements that most philosophy does not. Any philosophy that does contain religious elements would probably be better characterized as theology — Janus

All I'm saying is that unlike the other three major religions, Buddhism doesn't have a god you have to pray to.

As I understand it, it is a philosophy, introduced first by either Adiyogi, or Buddha ( dates are unreliable ), then branched off into religions - Hinduism, Buddhism, etc Yogic logic is secular. Western Idealism is one of the branches.
Bhutan is the only Buddhist country in the world. They measure gross national happiness, 75% of the country is wildlife reserves. They are carbon negative. No doubt there would be negatives also.

ask 180 Proof about how pessimism is the only realistic attitude to adopt. — TheMadFool

Dear @180 Proof,

How is pessimism the only realistic attitude to adopt?

There are more ways to suffer than there are ways to be happy. All things being equal, you're likely to experience more suffering than happiness. — TheMadFool

Surely that would vary with each individual. Not having experienced what others do, and having only anecdotal evidence of a vanishingly tiny fraction of humanity's experience, how could you possibly justify such a claim?

All I'm saying is that unlike the other three major religions, Buddhism doesn't have a god you have to pray to. — TheMadFool

In some schools of Buddhism adherents do pray, and give offerings, to deities.

Schopenhauer's philosophy arguably entertained only one irrational belief, namely the belief in Will — Janus

Is not will, even if not free, obviously existent? Buddhism is about making it (the will/ego) subtle, as in being Quietist

How do we define philosophy and religion? — TheMadFool

There is theoretical knowledge and practical knowledge on one side, and theoretical ethics and practical ethics on the other. (I like to avoid the words objective and subjective because that gets into the murky waters of Platonism) I learn about knowledge and practical ethics through reading. People have to ask themselves: am I looking for a way of a life or a set of beliefs?

The heart of philosophy is critical thinking and Buddhism meets that condition in being both based on facts (4 noble truths) and arguing for a worldview from them. — TheMadFool

I am not sure the cessation of suffering and enlightenment are facts, for example. That elimination of suffering and the hard to define state of 'enlightenment' are hardly testable. There is a great deal of evidence that Buddist meditation and other meditations can reduce suffering, but that's true of other things as well.

But I am not arguing that there isn't a Buddhist philosophy, but I think that's only a portion of Buddhism and hardly the most important. The practices are vastly more important and this is inherent in most Buddhisms. IOW you will be encouraged not to think a great deal, at least in comparison with how much you are encouraged to engage in the practices.

While religion may not be all blind faith, argumentation is frowned upon for the reason that god is perfect - among other things, is infallible and all good - and so to argue against good becomes, in the eyes of the faithful, both foolish and evil, with greater emphasis on the latter. — TheMadFool

I am not sure how well it would go in much of the East if you wanted to argue about Buddhism. I wouldn't recommend going into temples and giving that a shot, though Buddhism covers such a wide variety of people, it might go over well in some places. Yes, Buddhism is less focused on morals, which are actually more like practical heuristics, but then it seems to me you are conflating religion with Abrahamic religions. And even in that group you have Judaism which has much more focus on argument, reasoning the like than Buddhism.

Religion, philosophy, and sets of practices with goals are not mutually exclusive categories. I think Buddhism is centered on practices and eliciting responses, rather than arriving at mental verbal models of the universe than other philosophies. This is most clear in the Zen version of Buddhism, but other branches are really quite wary of trying to arrive at truth via mental verbal practices.

I would add that Buddhist texts are often accumulations of assertions, often with a lot of metaphors. This does not rule it out as being philosophy, but it is nothing at all like modern philosophy which is more focused on critical thinking.

I would say that will is a reified concept of motivation or causation. It may be reasonable to ascribe will to self-conscious agents but Schopenhauer universalized it.

To see the world as dark and evil is an aesthetic, and I think Buddhism's true one. Schopenhauer emphasized our unity with the evil and thought there hardly an escape. There are no easy answers to all this. Maybe best to slide though it like a ghost

I actually don't think Buddhism sees the world as "dark and evil" but it ascribes the darkness and evil that brings suffering to dukha (ignorance) which leads to attachment and aversion.

We don't have to ascribe to, or be attached to, such views at all; I would argue that they spring from preoccupation with the self. The cure is acceptance, even affirmation, of one's conditions, which enables you to see the joy in life. This was Nietzsche's correction of Schopenhauer.

Was Nietzsche a materialist?

Pessimist or Realist?

While not claiming to speak for any Buddhist....

My take is that Buddhism is an experience which transcends philosophy and religion. The philosophy and religion parts are props people are using to try to talk themselves in to the experience.

The same might be said for Christianity for example. Jesus said, "Die to be reborn". Die is a verb which suggests an act of surrender. An act. An experience. All the other junk piled on top of that is supposed to help people make their way to the experience, though I'm guessing the piled on junk is as much obstacle as asset.